Parity versus Being Plain Bad
 

.. parity simply means that all teams have the same money to spend for players, so you don\'t have a situation like in Baseball where the Yankees buy anyone...what teams do with that money, that\'s were the trick is,,,

.. I\'ll buy into the copycat syndrome.. it seems that the teams that maintain a certain level of success during the course of many seasons are the ones who stick to their system, ala Pittsburgh ( SB appereance, 2 AFC championship appereances, regular playoff appereances, probable SB appereance/win this year, all in the past decade), Patriots, Eagles, etc...

Parity versus Being Plain Bad
 

What is a bit scarey is that the majority of the AFC teams have been building these high powered offensive teams over the years and the new rule changes just seems to favor those teams a bit more.
This isn\'t the last year to witness the \"NFC Parity\", it\'ll take a couple of years or more for the tide to turn again. Philly, Rams, and Vikes seem to be the only ones to run with the AFC but bad coaching and injuries hurt them... its obvious this years champion is going to be an AFC team.



[Edited on 5/1/2005 by Euphoria]

Parity versus Being Plain Bad
 

.. this year, I think only Philly could possibly ball with the Steelers, Patriots, or Colts...
... you also have to look at the coaching continuity of the AFC teams versus that of the continuity in the NFC...

The AFC has:
Steelers - Cohwer - 10 years
Patriots - Bellichik - 5 years
Ravens - Billick - 6 years
Titans - Fisher - 10 years
Broncos - Shannahan - 10 years
etc...
... if you look at the NFC:
Cardinals - Green - 1st year
Giants - Caughlin - 1st year
Cowboys - Tuna - 2nd year
Redskins - Gibbs - 1st year
Bears - Smith - 1st year
Falcons - Mora - 1st year
Whiners - Ericcson - 2nd year
..etc..
.. there\'s only one 1st year coach in the AFC. this past year..... it seems that the coaching turnover is greater in the NFC...

[Edited on 5/1/2005 by Tobias-Reiper]

Parity versus Being Plain Bad
 

I am glad you mention that... I am begining to feel there is a lot to be said about that. You send a message to the players that you might as well play to your potential because coach is staying and player is the one to be moved, lower money or gone.

Parity versus Being Plain Bad
 

So, are you saying with that logic that the Saints would be better off keeping Haslet rather than bringing in a new coach?

Parity versus Being Plain Bad
 

I am not even remotely saying that...I am merely looking at the overall picture between the AFC and the NFC, and pointing out that the seemingly high turnover rate among coaches in the NFC could be a factor as to why the AFC seems to be playing better ball than the NFC...

.. I seriously doubt that the seemingly low coaching turnover ratio in the AFC is due to the owners not wanting to fire a coach because he would be owed too much money, or for continuity\'s sake...